List shared links

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description aligns with. The description adds the pagination behavior via cursor, going beyond the annotations and helping the agent understand the iteration pattern. It does not detail the response format, but that is a minor gap given the read-only nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It leads with the action, then adds the optional path and the pagination mechanism. Every clause contributes to the agent's understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with no required parameters, the description covers the main behavior and pagination. It omits the return value structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the read-only annotation, this is acceptable yet not fully complete. The optional path semantics are adequately implied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'path' is described). The description compensates by explaining 'optionally for a specific path' and 'Paginates via cursor', which gives meaning to the cursor parameter that the schema leaves undocumented. This adds value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'List existing shared links', with an optional path qualifier and a note on pagination. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as create_shared_link and get_shared_link_metadata by focusing on enumeration, and the title reinforces the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by describing the action and optional path filter, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. It mentions 'optionally for a specific path' and pagination, which gives context, but no direct guidance on when to prefer this over other list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.